West Ham United are considering lodging a formal appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against an independent tribunal's decision to rule in favour of Sheffield United over the Carlos Tevez affair, despite Football Association rules suggesting there was no further avenue for legal redress. It is understood West Ham will make a decision within 48 hours, with club officials holding talks with lawyers last night over whether to contest the award.

The consequences of the tribunal's ruling could be severe, with Sheffield United, who were relegated on the final day of the 2006-07 season, demanding more than £30m in compensation after the judgment found Tevez was worth at least three points to West Ham. Board members at Upton Park were said to be "furious and surprised" when informed of the decision on Friday.

Whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport is an option remains to be seen but West Ham are questioning whether the FA's rule K5c - which states that by signing up to the independent tribunal "the parties shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law" - precludes challenging the ruling. Some legal experts suggested otherwise, however, leaving the club in an uneasy position before last night's Carling Cup defeat by the Championship's Watford.

The verdict was a victory for the Sheffield United chairman, Kevin McCabe, who has spent the past 16 months campaigning for West Ham to face further punishment after they were found guilty of breaching rules in relation to the registration of Tevez and Javier Mascherano in April 2007. West Ham were fined £5.5m by the FA but McCabe insisted points should have been docked and, after failing with an appeal, invoked an FA rule allowing clubs to go before an independent tribunal.

Chaired by Lord Griffiths, the tribunal found that Tevez, who scored the goal that secured West Ham's survival on the final day of the season, was instrumental in keeping the club in the Premier League. The judgment suggested that without the Argentinian, West Ham would have "achieved at least three points less overall" and, as a consequence, would have been relegated to the Championship instead of Sheffield United.

While Sheffield United have no chance of regaining their elite status as a result of the ruling, the club have demanded compensation in recognition of the money that has been lost through dropping into the Championship. McCabe had previously claimed relegation cost them £50m but it is reported a figure of £30,396,897.32 has been demanded to cover reduced television income, depreciating player values and a drop in merchandising sales.

West Ham, furious that details of the ruling were leaked, dispute the fairness of that sum. Upton Park officials, who have rejected reports that players were sold last month because of the possible compensation claim, also believe the tribunal's ruling has set a dangerous precedent which could encourage other clubs to regularly contest decisions which are deemed to have affected their final league position.

Few back West Ham's chances of overturning the ruling. "My take is that West Ham have no right of appeal either to the English courts or the Court of Arbitration for Sport," said Steven Friel, partner and expert in arbitration with Davies Arnold Cooper solicitors. "The only way you could get before [CAS] would be if both sides agreed to that - and why would Sheffield United agree, because they have got the award they want?"

McCabe has refused to comment other than to confirm the ruling found in favour of Sheffield United, although not everyone has been so circumspect. Neil Warnock, who was in charge when the Blades slipped into the Championship, has pointed the finger at the Premier League, and in particular the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, for failing to impose a stiffer punishment on West Ham before.

"Richard Scudamore should look in the mirror," said Warnock, who felt that the chief executive probably thought "it was little Sheffield United, no one gave a hoot. Now it has been dealt with by an independent panel he has no influence over. I am delighted."